The reliability of Wikipedia, compared to both other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is often assessed in several ways, including statistically, by comparative review, by analysis of the historical patterns, and by strengths and weaknesses inherent in the Wikipedia process. Because Wikipedia is open to collaborative editing and can be edited anonymously, assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. The reliability of Wikipedia articles is a function of several criteria: * Accuracy of information provided within articles * Appropriateness of the images provided with the article * Appropriateness of the style and focus of the articles[5] * Susceptibility to, and exclusion and removal of, false information (a criterion specific to the Wikipedia process) * Comprehensiveness, scope and coverage within articles and in the range of articles * Identification of reputable third-party sources as citations * Stability of the articles * Susceptibility to editorial and systemic bias * Whether the articles are well-written. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

I am not a aware of another source that validates Wikipedia. Answer, you don't know.

All my professors always said not to use Wikipedia ever as a source. My 11 year old sister who is in 6th grade was told never to ues Wikipedia. It may be a good site for gathering some interesting facts on own time, but not reliable enough for any research papers or school work. My thoughts though, and I'm not an expert.

Some of it will be true, some partly correct or incomplete and other information will be completely wrong. It might be a good start to researching a subject but take all of it with a pinch of salt and check other sources to confirm.

There are a few ways... although you can't tell how reliable it is as a whole, you can check how reliable a certain article is. You can cross reference it - those with the most sources cited, and the highest quality of sources cited are likely to be a little more reliable than one that offers few sources, check each of its statements individually by reading through books, academic journals and so forth. Also by analysing the tone of the article to identify any possible bias or point. Of course, that completely goes against the point of checking an idea or fact on wikipedia - it is to avoid that painstaking work!

Only check things on it that you basically know already & just need confirmation.

I don't use it at all, so personally I would make no recmmendation for its use as a reliable source. It has been heavily criticized for its attitude favouring "consensus over credentials". The encyclopedia's articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, which allows highly qualified professionals as well as non-qualified and bored teenagers alike, to make any kind of alterations to the materials as they see fit. In other words, it leaves the site open to information vandalism.

as with ANY source, you need to cross check other sources to ensure you have the most accurate, detailed information available. wiki articles provide sources at the end of each article.

It is totally unreliable. It's just like this with some "experts" overseeing the process and calling it gospel.